Mastiff, I do not know the scale of the thing but most 'canned' IQ tests top out between 135 and 140 -- which is to say if you get an IQ above 130, you probably ceilinged the test and it can be seen as a 'floor' for your IQ, not at all an accurate assessment. That is a 'rule of thumb'. Past a certain IQ range, a canned test is meaningless and past a certain age it is also pretty meaningless. Profoundly gifted kids have to be assessed by age 7 or 8 and have to be assessed by a qualified assessor -- not merely 'take a test' -- in order to have any hope of getting an accurate assessment. Otherwise, their score is basically guaranteed to err on the low side.

This means you are highly intelligent and have picked up an impressive and unique collection of facts and figures over the years. You've got a remarkable vocabulary and exceptional math skills — which puts you in the same class as brainiacs like Bill Gates.

Originally posted by Michele Zone Profoundly gifted kids have to be assessed by age 7 or 8 and have to be assessed by a qualified assessor -- not merely 'take a test' -- in order to have any hope of getting an accurate assessment. Otherwise, their score is basically guaranteed to err on the low side.

Yup, no matter how profoundly gifted a kid is at age 7 or 8 you just can't expect the kid to figure out problems like the sequence one:
144 121 100 81 64 ....
It took me a while to see the connection between them, but after I saw the connection, the answer was a piece of cake... but 7 year old kids don't know exponential numbers... unless they have an IQ of like 190....

Originally posted by SkeLeton Yup, no matter how profoundly gifted a kid is at age 7 or 8 you just can't expect the kid to figure out problems like the sequence one:
144 121 100 81 64 ....
It took me a while to see the connection between them, but after I saw the connection, the answer was a piece of cake... but 7 year old kids don't know exponential numbers... unless they have an IQ of like 190....

Oops! Sorry. "Profoundly Gifted" is a term generally used to indicate an IQ of either 180 and above or 200 and above. It has no hard and fast definition. I chose it because of the IQ score Mastiff quoted from when he was in high school. My apologies. I shouldn't have used the term.

One, "IQ tests", especially past the early elementary years (7 or 8 on, as MZ said) test learned knowledge as much as or more than the inborn limits of intelligence. Math problems like the one Skel brought up are one example; not everyone has learned enough about square roots and exponential numbers to get that question right, even some highly intelligent people.

Two, it asks for personal info, like first and last name, interests, email address--and money. It's either a scam for the money, or a hook/lure to get info for spamming/advertising purposes, or both. ludes98 has the right idea (I wouldn't use real name either.)

Originally posted by B'lieve One, "IQ tests", especially past the early elementary years (7 or 8 on, as MZ said) test learned knowledge as much as or more than the inborn limits of intelligence.

I didn't even bother to go look at the actual test because it is a lot worse than what you indicate.

First of all, the original test that grew into "IQ" testing was never intended to assess "intelligence". It was intended to assess "readiness for school" in an era where birth certificates were not as common -- so a child's age was not necessarily known -- and when there was a huge issue in France in terms of what city kids knew versus rural kids. Second, there is huge cultural bias in most tests -- this cultural bias partly accounts for the large difference in IQ scores of first generation immigrants from more established Americans, which was used in the early part of the 20th century to justify the racist position that "they" were not suited for anything but manual labor because "they" were too stupid.

Third, IQ stands for "intelligence quotient" and the normed score of 100 meaning "average" comes from the idea that it represents your mental age divided by your chronological age times 100. The short version of that problem is that it is pretty meaningless for most adults. IQ tests don't mean a heckuva lot past a certain age.

Additionally, the only test which is known to be a really good assessment tool for very high IQ's is out of print -- some assessors continue to use it anyway. But most tools widely available today top out around 140. Anyone who scores within a few points of the max score for the test has 'ceilinged' the test and it is pretty meaningless.

Uh, I could go on with the problems with IQ testing, but I think you get the idea. I didn't bring any of this up earlier because I assumed this test was being done "for fun" like a lot of the other tests in the FAC (like "how evil are you?", etc) and that no one was taking the results at all seriously.

Originally posted by B'lieve Two, it asks for personal info, like first and last name, interests, email address--and money. It's either a scam for the money, or a hook/lure to get info for spamming/advertising purposes, or both. ludes98 has the right idea (I wouldn't use real name either.)

I didn't, but I didn't know how most people feel about their first name....I mean Michael, John, and Matthew must be safe having been the in the top ten SS name list for decades now. Either way I think the whole thing is crap. Just for fun folks, real tests are administered by a professional.

This means you are highly intelligent and have a powerful mix of skills and insight that can be applied in a variety of different ways. Like Plato, your exceptional math and verbal skills make you very adept at explaining things to others — and at anticipating and predicting patterns.

How much you wanna bet that no one scores above 140? It is probably the ceiling of the test (like I have said 2 other times already). Big whoop.

"Your score was 29 out of 30. That is an excellent score, you would have a very strong chance of passing the Mensa test and joining Mensa."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

Artificially inflated scores

The emode test is bogus. They just want to make you feel smart so that you shell out cash to discover what your score means. Take the BBC Nation IQ Test for a more accurate measure of your actual IQ. Before claiming the title of genius, take the BBC test as your IQ will magically drop 10-15 points.

But having some of the questions in pounds instead of dollars was fun!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

Re: Artificially inflated scores

The emode test is bogus. They just want to make you feel smart so that you shell out cash to discover what your score means. Take the BBC Nation IQ Test for a more accurate measure of your actual IQ. Before claiming the title of genius, take the BBC test as your IQ will magically drop 10-15 points.

And BBC -- this means it is British? Let's see, most of us are American. The non-Americans generally indicated that they were surprised at their low scores on the emode test. Can you say "Cultural bias"? I *bet* most American scores would drop if they took a non-American test -- a point I already covered. So what?

All IQ testing is seriously flawed -- especially when it is just a "test". Anyone who has training in how to take these silly Multi-guess formats can increase their odds of getting the right answer without actually knowing the right answer. When there are 4 answers to pick from, you have a 25% chance of getting the right one without having any clue what the question means if you just answer the darn thing. If you can tell that one answer is patently wrong, you increase your odds of guessing right to 33%. If you can tell that 2 answers are patently wrong, you can increase your odds of guessing right to 50-50.

I could go on but the short version is that a short multi-guess test like the emode test does not have a format which can eliminate the possibility that some moron was making pretty patterns in the answer column and did well. This should be viewed as "For Fun" ONLY.

BBC test: 81.... uhhh I got bored by the dumb britishe questions.. besides how the heck am I supposed to know how much a penny is or know at what temperature does sea water boil in Fahrenheit!

Anyways, MZ is right... these tests should be for fun only... and even the professional tests aren't that trustful, and who gives a damn about some 'number' that suposedly says how smart you are... Some may be very smart but they can be completly useless for society... (sorry slackers)

Originally posted by nerudite My score went down slightly (but not that much) on the BBC test. It is difficult, as I didn't see one of the anagrams right off because it had anglicized spelling instead of the American version.

You'll never get your citizenship until you spell colour and neighbourhood the right way.

Too lazy to beat myself up for being to lazy to beat myself up for being too lazy to... well you get the point....

Originally posted by donk You'll never get your citizenship until you spell colour and neighbourhood the right way.

Oh god... I do that all the time (without even knowing I do it). In agenda reports I type neighbourhood half the time and neighborhood the other half. Same thing with colour. The word that got me in the BBC test was aeroplane. I still figured it out in time though...

Originally posted by SkeLeton Anyways, MZ is right... these tests should be for fun only... and even the professional tests aren't that trustful,

To Test or Not To Test -- that is the question. It comes up regularly in gifted forums, particularly amongst gifted homeschoolers. If your kid is in school, there are obvious benefits to having proof that the kid qualifies for gifted programs and other accomodation. But it is not so clear cut if you homeschool and many people do not want their kid labeled (and with good reason). Some guy -- who went to Harvard and also has a Ph.D. (although I don't know if it is from Harvard) and writes books aimed at homeschoolers and is worshipped like a rock star by some of this crowd -- always vehemently argues against testing.

I always agree with him that *testing* is pretty meaningless but I disagree with him that you shouldn't ever test. I tell my story -- about how I had NO CLUE that my gifted-learning disabled child with visual and medical handicaps was gifted until he was assessed at age 11 -- and I then say that if you are interested, do not get your kid merely tested. Instead, you should get them properly assessed by a qualified professional. If your child has any kind of handicaps, that can suppress the test scores. And various tests are aimed at a particular learning style. If you're strongest in a different learning style, that can suppress your test score. A zillion other things can impact the score.

Online tests in particular are "just for fun," in my not so humble opinion.

Since when is 133 bad? In my neck of the country, most folks would be thrilled beyond belief to score over 100. I was mostly thrilled because it had not slipped too far from the last IQ test I took, in 5th grade.

I am not saying it is bad, just that I suspected it was lower than your actual IQ -- which you have now confirmed. I have stated repeatedly that IQ tests tend to top out around 140 and a score near the highest score that the test goes to may be inaccurate and may actually be lower than the IQ of the individual who got such a score. And I have stated repeatedly that they are pretty meaningless for adults -- that taking an IQ test past a certain age is likely to give you an inaccurate score which errs on the low side if you have a higher than average IQ. And your comment that your score is only a little lower than the last one you took as a kid sort of agrees with that point as well.

You know, I am really tired of trying to defend my position. Let's go with yours: Because you are so smart, you cannot be wrong. Therefore, I must be wrong and I don't know the first thing about IQ tests. This test is completely accurate. ...
Oh, but wait, if that is true, then I am the smartest person in Cyburbia with an IQ of 140. Hmmm. If your IQ is too high for you to be wrong and my IQ is higher than yours....

Hmmm... perhaps the test isn't perfect and the test is wrong to show my IQ as 140. Which would agree with what I have been saying all along. So, if what I am saying is right, then, maybe, I do know what I am talking about.

So, would you like to choose Door Number One:
Behind door number one, you get to chase your tail and attempt to figure out how to explain how it is that I am completely wrong -- the test is accurate and infallible and I am too dumb to see that -- AND your infallible test states that I am smarter than everyone else here, you included.

Or would you prefer Door Number Two:
Behind door number two, you can save us both some time, energy, and ire and admit that I might have a valid point and know what I am talking about.

Oh, wait, I have the perfect solution: You can choose Door Number Three.
Behind door number three, you, I and everyone else admits that we lied when we reported our scores. We must have lied because not only have I made ridiculous statements about this IQ test but, some weeks back, I made all these claims that I knew something about IQ's and giftedness and that I had concluded that the average IQ of the members of this forum was "above average" and "probably gifted".

Now, there are many definitions out there of what "gifted" means and it is a very difficult-to-define term. For the sake of argument, let's use something simple: "gifted" is "the top 10% of the population" for IQ. Statistics tells us that 95% of all results will fall within 2 standard deviations of mu. Mu for IQ is 100 and a standard deviation is 15 points. This means that 95% of all IQ's should fall between a score of 70 and 130. Note that this would be the middle 95% and a score above 130 would not put you in the top 5% of the population. No... It would put you in the top 2 1/2% of the population.

So, since I am (according to some members of this forum) an 'elitist snob' who doesn't know anything about IQ tests or the gifted population, and my claims (that most members of Cyburbia had "above average" and "probably gifted" -- top 10% -- IQ's) were outrageous, then the numerous claims of IQ's above 130 -- i.e. falling in the top 2 1/2% of IQ's -- have got to all be lies. Surely, if the members of Cyburbia are only slightly above average, the reported scores should fall between, say 98 and 108 -- not mostly in the 120's and 130's.

So, if we all lied, then you could stand by the claims that A) I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to intelligence -- people here aren't all that smart and B) I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to intelligence testing -- this IQ test is accurate.

Oh, but in order for that argument to hold up, I would have to be right about an awful lot of things about giftedness and IQ scores -- and that suggests that maybe I have the aforementioned expertise in this area which sort of undermines the argument that I don't know what I am talking about. Besides: I did not lie. I really did score 140 on the silly test.

Which brings us back to door number 2: maybe I do know what I am talking about -- and did know it a few weeks back, too, when I was generally being dimissed by most everyone here for my "outrageous" claims that this forum has a lot of rather smart people in it and that fact is one of the underlying causes of egomaniacal arguments wherein neither party wants to back down and admit they might be wrong -- kind of like THIS argument -- because a few hundred gifted people (who are all used to being one of the smartest people in the room) have had few opportunities to interact with a large number of their peers and learn to genuinely respect differences of opinion and differing viewpoints as valid. If so, then, in their individual subjective experience, if someone disagrees with them that person is usually wrong. This experience -- of consistently being right and having to prove it to people who aren't smart enough to readily see it -- conditions gifted individuals to stubbornly assume they are ALWAYS right and to stubbornly refuse to back down until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are, in fact, wrong.

Hey, folks: I really am not trying to be obnoxious. I do know that this is hard to take -- being wrong when you are not used to it because you are so smart.

Oh, sorry, there I go again with my ridiculous claims that most folks here have brains...

surely, you, of all people, are too smart to believe that...

"Eppur si muove."

PS: can I see a show of hands of all the folks whose IQ's are below 70, thus bringing the average IQ for the forum down around average. That would be another way to prove that I am wrong on both counts.